Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #573
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, June 30 2001           Volume 01 : Number 573

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 14:51:36 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] Nomination for representative to the NC Review TF  -  Eric Dierker (fwd)

Hello Stefan,

Thursday, June 28, 2001, 6:06:39 AM, Stefan Probst wrote:

> OK,
> since this is not about hi-tek, I will answer here to the list, and not 
> privately.

> At 23:23 26.6.2001 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> > On-line credit-card payments need https protocol, which includes
>> > encryption. Encryption is by the letter of the rules usually illegal (all
>> > the customers would need a permission). Will Hi-Tek get the rules changed
>> > first, or just produce again another factum which defies the rules?
>>
>>Where do you get this from?

> There is a decision from DGPT of November 2000 which says, that only a few 
> offices can use encryption freely. All others have to get permission. DGPT 
> is something like the Post and Telecom Ministry here in Vietnam.
> The relevant paragraph of the decision is IMHO much too short-sighted, but 
> it is written ....

Ok, my mistake.  I thought you were referring to other restrictions.

>>The registry makes that decision.

> Actually no. The registry is only carrying out decisions of the relevant 
> ministries.

Well, in this case, General Department of Posts and Telecommunications
of Vietnam IS the registry.  They may have operations contracted out,
but when I say registry, I mean the registered point of authority with
IANA who was delegated the domain.

>>They do not need a dispute policy, most ccTLDs say they abide by
>>rulings of courts of competent jurisdiction over the registry or the
>>registrant, and that's it.  This UDRP nonsense in gTLDs is something
>>supralegal that shouldn't be encouraged for ccTLDs to use.

> I don't agree, since jurisdictions in most developing countries would 
> probably be unable to resolve any problems, because there are no laws to 
> cover those issues. Besides that lots of other problems.

I don't consider this a problem.  A very large number of ccTLDs have
no dispute policy except to abide by court rulings, and many of them
have about the same or less internet aware/trademark law than Vietnam
does, I'm sure.  If they have no laws, then there can be no violations
of the law that warrant a need for a dispute policy.  Dispute policies
should only codify a process for rights that are established by law.

>>As for whois, that is also optional for the registry.

> No RFCs which regulate that?

The only RFC that governs ccTLDs is 1591, since that is what they were
delegated under. A large number of ccTLDs do not operate whois
services.

RFC's are not mandatory, anyway, and IANA and ICANN's regulatory power
over the ccTLDs is very tenuous at best, since they (the ccTLDs) are
not under contract to them so there is no enforcement mechanism.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 15:28:22 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ccTLD Rights

Dear All,

These are very helpful exchanges in the area of understanding misconceptions about
the operations of ccTLDs. Many misconceptions are not accidents.  We found several
accredited Registrar sights intentionally changed the term "generic" to "Global"
in an effort to make it appear that the ccTLDs were not Global.

Williams point on Trademarks is well spoken and consistent with maintaining
Cultural Integrity and National Security, as long as it does not violate treaties,
but those are really incorporated into the law.  I would say that RFC 1591 leans
more to the premise that domain names would not be governed by anything but
existing law.

I believe that our disregard for privacy in the whois databases is a uniquely
American philosophy that has wormed its way into the international setting.

Sincerely,
Eric

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Stefan,
>
> Thursday, June 28, 2001, 6:06:39 AM, Stefan Probst wrote:
>
> > Actually no. The registry is only carrying out decisions of the relevant
> > ministries.
>
> Well, in this case, General Department of Posts and Telecommunications
> of Vietnam IS the registry.  They may have operations contracted out,
> but when I say registry, I mean the registered point of authority with
> IANA who was delegated the domain.
>
> >>They do not need a dispute policy, most ccTLDs say they abide by
> >>rulings of courts of competent jurisdiction over the registry or the
> >>registrant, and that's it.  This UDRP nonsense in gTLDs is something
> >>supralegal that shouldn't be encouraged for ccTLDs to use.
>
> > I don't agree, since jurisdictions in most developing countries would
> > probably be unable to resolve any problems, because there are no laws to
> > cover those issues. Besides that lots of other problems.
>
> I don't consider this a problem.  A very large number of ccTLDs have
> no dispute policy except to abide by court rulings, and many of them
> have about the same or less internet aware/trademark law than Vietnam
> does, I'm sure.  If they have no laws, then there can be no violations
> of the law that warrant a need for a dispute policy.  Dispute policies
> should only codify a process for rights that are established by law.
>
> >>As for whois, that is also optional for the registry.
>
> > No RFCs which regulate that?
>
> The only RFC that governs ccTLDs is 1591, since that is what they were
> delegated under. A large number of ccTLDs do not operate whois
> services.
>
> RFC's are not mandatory, anyway, and IANA and ICANN's regulatory power
> over the ccTLDs is very tenuous at best, since they (the ccTLDs) are
> not under contract to them so there is no enforcement mechanism.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:28:51 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Registrars' Domain Name Speculation?

Dear Mr. Lynn,

While visiting a popular domain name auction site today, I noticed a number 
of domains whose registrants were registrars.  These domains were listed with 
a minimum bid price in excess of $50.  While I understand that registrars 
will occasionally be required to seize a domain due to credit-card chargeback 
considerations, and while I understand that the registrar has already paid 
the $6 fee to the registry in such situations, I am bothered by the fact that 
such activities (to my way of thinking) constitute either "warehousing" or 
"speculation", which would appear to be prohibited by the terms of the 
Registrar Accreditation Agreement (as the domain is not being immediately 
released to the registry for return to the pool of available names).

It is quite conceivable that a registrar could handsomely profit from auction 
activities (especially if the bids reach into the thousands of dollars).    
Is this practice a violation of the RAA?  If so, how will ICANN enforce the 
terms of the contract?  If not, should there be a policy in place to 
discourage this type of activity?

Your thoughts on this matter will be appreciated.

Best regards,
Danny Younger
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 16:45:15 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Individuals' Constituency

The intact portion of Danny's post is the meat of Karl's proposed resolution
which is one portion of the Review TFs job.

[email-masked] wrote:

>
> Such proposals shall describe at least the following:
>
> The proposed structure
> Sources of funding
> Criteria for membership
> Willingness to reconcile differences with others who have submitted proposals
>
> The ICANN Board of Directors expresses its intention to promptly consider
> such proposals and hopes that a constituency for individuals who have
> registered domain names may soon be formed."

Structure;
Analysing which existing structures seem to work and why seems to be the best way
to begin this Task.
OTOH it may be easier to start from scratch.

Sources of funding;
On U.S. electronic tax filings you can check a box for approval to donate part of
your money to certain things. It occurred to me that accredited registrars could
do the same on registration forms.  Great for outreach and it may just raise a
few coins.  Just a thought!

Criteria for Membership;
I did not quite catch some comments suggesting that there may be a valid reason
for disqualifying sub-level domains, I would like to hear more. What about
proxy's that are there for things like single living alone women that do not want
to be tracked through their domain. What about the poor guy who gets reversed
hijacked and loses his website his name and livlihood, do we then kick him
out-ouch?

Willingness to reconcile;
I had not thought about this before, and at first blush it seems axiomatic.

Sincerely,
Eric

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 20:56:08 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination for representative to the NC Review TF -  Eric Dierker (fwd)

Stefan, all interested parties and assembly members,

Stefan Probst wrote:

> OK,
> since this is not about hi-tek, I will answer here to the list, and not
> privately.
>
> At 23:23 26.6.2001 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> > > On-line credit-card payments need https protocol, which includes
> > > encryption. Encryption is by the letter of the rules usually illegal (all
> > > the customers would need a permission). Will Hi-Tek get the rules changed
> > > first, or just produce again another factum which defies the rules?
> >
> >Where do you get this from?
>
> There is a decision from DGPT of November 2000 which says, that only a few
> offices can use encryption freely. All others have to get permission. DGPT
> is something like the Post and Telecom Ministry here in Vietnam.
> The relevant paragraph of the decision is IMHO much too short-sighted, but
> it is written ....

  My understanding is that this is not being enforced as it is in process
to be changed.

>
>
> >But in any event, .vn is merely loosening the restrictions on their
> >domain, and I can't say that I would blame hi-tek for that, if you
> >choose to want to blame anyone.
>
> I do not blame Hi-Tek for that.
> New regulations concerning the Internet should be out soon. According to
> VNPT's (Vietnam Post and Telecom) website (i.e. as closest as you can get)
> they are not yet out. We will see, what the new regulations allow, and what
> not.

  Again my understanding is that new regulations are out, just not publicly
posted anywhere yet...

>
>
> >The registry makes that decision.
>
> Actually no. The registry is only carrying out decisions of the relevant
> ministries.
>
> >They do not need a dispute policy, most ccTLDs say they abide by
> >rulings of courts of competent jurisdiction over the registry or the
> >registrant, and that's it.  This UDRP nonsense in gTLDs is something
> >supralegal that shouldn't be encouraged for ccTLDs to use.
>
> I don't agree, since jurisdictions in most developing countries would
> probably be unable to resolve any problems, because there are no laws to
> cover those issues. Besides that lots of other problems.

  What other problems?  Can you be a bit more specific?

>
>
> >As for whois, that is also optional for the registry.
>
> No RFCs which regulate that?
>
> >   There is
> >nothing binding them to do it, but I'm sure they will, after all,
> >whois is one of the easiest things to implement.
>
> And for fair on-line registrations you should have one.
>
> Rgds.
> Stefan
>
> --
>

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:28:31 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga]ccTLD Rights

Jeff, and all,

You make some wonderful observations here Jeff. We are speaking very case sensitive
and relevant matters here so it is important that it be understood that when I
speak everyone understands it is only from doing public research on the Internet
and I in no way am speaking for the wonderful sovereign entity of Vietnam.  Mr.
Probst brought out a good point regarding confusion using the vnnic.com handle.
Not for the reasons he spoke of, but better ones. Those must be discussed
elsewhere. Although it must be understood my passion and exuberance for Vietnam is
as a standard outside American. We are a company and Vietnam is a country that can
adapt to public desire and make corrections, thank you Mr. Probst for all your help
on and off line.

Jeff Williams wrote:

> > I do not blame Hi-Tek for that.
> > New regulations concerning the Internet should be out soon. According to
> > VNPT's (Vietnam Post and Telecom) website (i.e. as closest as you can get)
> > they are not yet out. We will see, what the new regulations allow, and what
> > not.
>
>   Again my understanding is that new regulations are out, just not publicly
> posted anywhere yet...
>
>

Yes and no! by going to our site the first and only banners that pop up are to
Official Sites, go to the great Consulate site and after looking around go to links
and if you try you will find some Planning and Investment Sites which are
educational.  In there you can find all of the Government documents you need to
understand this situation, Vietnam is becoming much more open and transparent than
ICANN.

>
> > >The registry makes that decision.
> >
> > Actually no. The registry is only carrying out decisions of the relevant
> > ministries.
> >
> > >They do not need a dispute policy, most ccTLDs say they abide by
> > >rulings of courts of competent jurisdiction over the registry or the
> > >registrant, and that's it.  This UDRP nonsense in gTLDs is something
> > >supralegal that shouldn't be encouraged for ccTLDs to use.
> >
> > I don't agree, since jurisdictions in most developing countries would
> > probably be unable to resolve any problems, because there are no laws to
> > cover those issues. Besides that lots of other problems.
>
>   What other problems?  Can you be a bit more specific?

The only one that I know of is that;  Most people do not understand the marvelous
potential of the great Country of Vietnam and are stuck in the past.  If we compare
Vietnam to "western" States we find their level of cooperation higher and the "red
tape" equal.  But I do have to say I am jaded as I love the land and the people
because of their great attitude.

Sincerely,
Eric

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 10:33:24 +0800
From: Jim Ayson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] EU Gives Initial Backing to '.eu' Internet

At 08:55 AM 6/28/01 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=internetnews&StoryID=90816
>
>Regards,
>
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos

I heard that ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) was also 
bucking for a regional TLD similar to EU - any word or update on this?

- --------------------------------
jim ayson / [email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 21:46:02 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars' Domain Name Speculation?

Danny and all assembly members,

  Danny, I am a bit confused by part of you post below.  Whearhousing
and speculation are two entirely different things/activities with respect
to Domain Names.  As such, I would humbly request a clarification
to that part of you post here.  ????

  With respect to speculation in Domain names, no registrar should
be conducting those types of activities.  However Register.com
(Your old company) and Verisign ( Now you new employer),
and both ICANN Accredited Registrars (Whatever that really means?)
have engaged in Speculation of Domain names.  This was well
and extensively reported on the now defunct Domain-Policy list,
( I can provide reference archived post from that list if legally necessary
or expedient).  It is hand has been clear for more than a year now that
the "Oversight" authority that the ICANN BOD and staff are supposed
to have is not well exercised, if at all, and DOC/NTIA, whom also
have "Oversight" authority including over ICANN itself, have also
been absent in correcting or even addressing this continuing problem.
None of this is to say that organizations or companies that are not
Registrars cannot or should not Speculate in Domain Names.  Quite
the contrary.

  As to the Whearhousing concern, separate from the Speculation
issue/concern, Veristin/NSI has for some time been seemingly engaged
in this type of endeavor as also several other reported Registrars and
the ICANN B0D has been made aware of this activity on many
occasions, yet we see no known addressing of this activity as it would
seem to be in violation or their RAA, as you so rightly indicated
Danny.  So I feel, as do most of our members and a growing number
of stakeholders that either Whearhousing is exceptable despite
their RAA contracts, or the ICANN BoD and staff are ill
prepared to manage their responsibility's...

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Mr. Lynn,
>
> While visiting a popular domain name auction site today, I noticed a number
> of domains whose registrants were registrars.  These domains were listed with
> a minimum bid price in excess of $50.  While I understand that registrars
> will occasionally be required to seize a domain due to credit-card chargeback
> considerations, and while I understand that the registrar has already paid
> the $6 fee to the registry in such situations, I am bothered by the fact that
> such activities (to my way of thinking) constitute either "warehousing" or
> "speculation", which would appear to be prohibited by the terms of the
> Registrar Accreditation Agreement (as the domain is not being immediately
> released to the registry for return to the pool of available names).
>
> It is quite conceivable that a registrar could handsomely profit from auction
> activities (especially if the bids reach into the thousands of dollars).
> Is this practice a violation of the RAA?  If so, how will ICANN enforce the
> terms of the contract?  If not, should there be a policy in place to
> discourage this type of activity?
>
> Your thoughts on this matter will be appreciated.
>
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 00:10:25 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Clarification

Dear Jeff,

perhaps you are confused... Verisign purchased Registrars.com, not 
register.com.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 01:00:02 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Clarification

Danny and all assembly members,

  No not at all it is a matter of record that Verisign owns %30+
of Register.com and is considering a buy out of Register.com
outright.  Now, you may not work for Verisign yet, or
maybe never at all if you leave Register.com before hand.  >;)

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Jeff,
>
> perhaps you are confused... Verisign purchased Registrars.com, not
> register.com.
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 00:01:22 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Well I accepted -tf

I posted something where I said I accepted to go on to the task force.
I remember going to bed right afterword as I past my second day on the
net.  Sometimes I get lost in space -cyperspace.  I work around the
globe and time just seems irrelevant until I get really tired.

I really like you people and who you truly represent.  If you want me to
represent you I would be honored and do my best to not only not let you
down but let them have it for you.

peace,

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 04:17:35 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Well I accepted -tf

Eric and all assembly members,

  I am sure that many of the assembly members are grateful and pleased
that a person of your obvious talents and understanding could not be
better served as the potential winner of the election for this post.
Thank you for accepting your nomination...

Eric Dierker wrote:

> I posted something where I said I accepted to go on to the task force.
> I remember going to bed right afterword as I past my second day on the
> net.  Sometimes I get lost in space -cyperspace.  I work around the
> globe and time just seems irrelevant until I get really tired.
>
> I really like you people and who you truly represent.  If you want me to
> represent you I would be honored and do my best to not only not let you
> down but let them have it for you.
>
> peace,
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 10:51:33 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] DNSO Voluntary Donation Fund

From the Council list:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00528.html

As you know, after quite a few months of preparation, we are now about to 
launch the fund-raising efforts for voluntary donations to the DNSO.  These 
funds, which will be matched by donations from VeriSign Global Registry 
Services for up to $100,000, are primarily designed to cover the costs of 
providing professional support to the Names Council.  Without them, baring 
any other changes, we will continue to operate on a primarily volunteer 
basis. 

The purpose of this note is to alert you to the fact that the fund-raising 
effort will now begin and ask that you raise this with all of the members of 
your Constituency.  A fund-raising document is attached.  Contributions, 
which are tax deductible in the United States, should be made payable to 
“ICANN DNSO ACCOUNT” and mailed to ICANN.  Alternatively, donors may wire 
transfer their donations as follows: 

Information for wire transfer to ICANN account:
Account number 09146-11724
Routing indicator 121000358
Bank of America Branch 0914
4754 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA  90292  USA
Telephone +1/310/247-2080

When making wire transfers, please send tracking information to
<[email-masked]>.  

Raising money for the operation of the DNSO and the Names Council is 
important.  I think that we all agree that our ability to operate 
successfully is hindered by our all-volunteer support and that increased 
professional support is necessary to our success.  While I know that many 
businesses and organizations   -including many large businesses who benefit 
greatly form the successful operation of the domain names system-  will claim 
that they have no funds available for such donations, if each 
organization/person who attends Names Council meetings would only donate one 
fifth of the amount of money that they spend on travel and entertainment for 
ICANN meetings to this effort, we will be amply funded.

Please ask each of your members to make a contribution and help us push them 
a little on this.

Roger Cochetti
Chair
Budget Committee 
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- --------------------------------------------

I urge all members of the GA to contribute to this process.  I will 
personally begin with a $100 donation.

Best regards,
Danny Younger
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 11:27:32 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Registrars' Domain Name Speculation?

>Dear Mr. Lynn,
>
>It is quite conceivable that a registrar could handsomely profit from auction
>activities (especially if the bids reach into the thousands of dollars).
>Is this practice a violation of the RAA?  If so, how will ICANN enforce the
>terms of the contract?  If not, should there be a policy in place to
>discourage this type of activity?

Not only that, but these new "Registrars", to ensure their successful
warehousing activities, are overloading the Registry with connections
during the (now) infamous drop period, and the "normal" registrars are
being denied connections altogether, or suffering huge delays just trying
to register normal business.

Surely Verisign can put in place connection limitations, so that these new
"Registrars" cannot effect normal registrars business operations.

Perhaps a system where a Registrar's number of registration requests cannot
exceed more than 120% its normal _successful_ registration traffic that it
would normally do during non-drop periods.

This would allow normal Registrars to continue operation and limit the
damage caused to their business by the new boutique registry-hammering
registrars.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 03:03:30 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] EU proposes its own Internet domain 

EU proposes its own Internet domain
By Reuters
June 27, 2001, 11:55 a.m. PT

LUXEMBOURG--European Union ministers gave their blessing Wednesday to the
setting up of .eu, a new Internet top-level domain for Pan-European
companies, associations and institutions

[more]
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-6394663.html

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 11:14:00 -0700
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Webcast of Names Council Meeting (29 June 2001)

The MP3 webcast of today's Names Council meeting is now available at:

    http://www.lextext.com/nc29June2001.html

A copy of the agenda also is linked from the URL above.

As always, many thanks to the Names Council for continuing to make its
meetings open to the public in spite of budget constraints and for its
willingness to explore alternative, less expensive options for webcasting.

      -- Bret 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 18:38:28 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] UDRP Task Force Member

Terms of Reference for the Names Council UDRP Review and Evaluation Task 
Force have 
been posted at: 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.html 
 
The General Assembly has been invited to participate in the NC Task Force 
process 
by selecting a representative (with the caveat that such member is not 
already included 
in any of the following groups:  Business Constituency, ccTLD Constituency, 
gTLD 
Constituency, IP Constituency, ISP Constituency, NCDNH Constituency, 
Registrar Constituency,  Complainant (or representative), CPR Panelist, CPR 
Provider, eResolution Panelist, eResolution Provider, NAF Panelist, NAF 
Provider,  Respondent (or representative), WIPO Panelist, WIPO Provider, 
Independent ADR expert). 
 
As the Chair of the NC has asked that the selection be concluded within a 
week's 
time, the GA will not have recourse to its usual voting mechanism.  Therefore 
it 
is appropriate that the selection be made from the list of individuals that 
have 
already expressed a participatory interest in this topic (having decided to 
contribute 
to the GA's udrp list).  The following members have made contributions to 
that list: 

Corliss 
Dierker 
Farrar 
Gardner 
Gymer 
James 
Lovell 
McElroy 
Nortridge 
Rader 
Teernstra 
Williams 
 
I am asking these twelve members to put forward a candidate acceptable to the 
group 
(through necessary discussion on the udrp list);  If the group fails to 
arrive upon 
a consensus choice, the Chair will make the final selection. 
 
These members may wish to review the preliminary discussions of the UDRP Task 
Force 
which may be found at:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/tor-udrp/Arc00/maillist.html 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #573
************************